RAJ BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar dated 10-9-71 by which he convicted the appellant under section 352 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three months and to a fine of Rs. 500.00 in default of payment whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The facts of the prosecution case are that Mahesh Chand PW 7 was a constable in police station Thanagazi and was on guard duty from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. on 25-6-69. Accused appellant Raj Bahadur Singh came to relieve him at about 5-55 p. m. when they changed their duties under the supervision of Laxmi Sahai PW 8. They both Mahesh Chand and the accused have had a quarrel earlier in the day because Mahesh Chand PW 7 had broken a china cup belonging to Raj Bahadur. It is alleged that when Raj Bahadur Singh took the charge of the rifle, cartridges and other articles from Mahesh Chand and Mahesh Chand turned his back to leave the barrack, he heard the sound of the loading of the rifle, he turned round and saw that the accused was aiming the rifle at him. He caught hold of the barrel and turned it aside. But the accused managed to pull the trigger. The rifle went off. The bullet did not however hit any one, The occurrence was watched by witnesses Mishri Lal PWl, Jagdish Prasad PW 2, Surendra Singh PW 3, and Laxmi Sahai PW8. Mishri Lal PW 1 was the station house officer who rushed towards the place of occurrence and snatched the rifle. Mahesh Chand also reached there. A report of this incident was recorded by Rarodan- PW 9 and a case was registered against Raj Bahadur Singh, Ramdan took the rifle and the remaining cartridges in his possession. The rifle and empty cartridge was sent for examination to Ballistic Expert CD. Gandhe PW 4. Asa result of investigation, the accused was tried for an offence under section 307 Indian Penal Code He was acquitted of this charge but convicted and sentenced as aforesaid under section 352 Indian Penal Code In his judgment the learned Additional Sessions Judge referred to the statement of Laxmi Sahai PW 8 who said that the constables on guard duty were supplied with blank S. P. A. cartridges. These cartridges are meant only to frighten. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, held that the accused loaded the rifle with blank cartridges which were meant to scare people. He disbelieved the evidence of Mishri Lal PW 1 and Ramdan PW 9 that the S.P.A. cartridges were deadly. It was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that a cartridges with bullet was issued to the accused. No bullet was found on the spot or any where near it. Only a jacket covering the cartridge and no bullet was found in the police station premises. Ramdan PW 9 has deposed that he had opened the chamber of the rifle and had found discharged cartridge therein. The seizure memo of the rifle is Ex. P4.

(3.) Mr. C.D. Gandhe PW 4 Ballistic Expert has deposed that he had received a 303 rifle with a discharged cartridge inside its chamber. The fire pin marks on the disputed cartridge Ex. 3 tallied with the marks on the cap of the test cartridges and therefore he was of the view that the cartridge Ex. 3 was fired from the rifle received by him. He stated that such cartridges contain only 1 lead bullet. When the jacket recovered from the spot was shown to him he stated that the jacket can be of a bullet of rifle cartridge. He could not say whether the jacket was of the bullet which was fired from the rifle Ex. 1 as he had no opportunity to examine it under a microscope. He admitted however, that blank cartridges of rifle 303 are available. He was unable to say whether the cartridge Ex. 3 that was fired from the rifle, was the blank one, or contained a bullet. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was justified in holding that only a blank cartridge was supplied and fired. The evidence of the eye witnesses no doubt proved that Raj Bahadur fired at Mahesh Chand but the cartridge was a blank one.